VIJAY KUMARI Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to regularize the petitioner as Electrical Foreman from the date she has completed five years service i.e. March, 2000 by quashing Office Order No.167 dated 28.04.2005 issued by respondent No.3. The petitioner has also prayed her pay fixation after regularization and release of admissible dues from March, 2000.

(2.) The pleaded case of petitioner is that she passed out diploma in Electrical Engineering on 27.07.1987. The respondent No.3 initially offered appointment to petitioner on daily wages under pump operator scheme for 28 days. The vacancy of Electrical Supervisor/Foreman was notified by respondent No.3 to the Employment Exchange. The name of petitioner was sponsored, the petitioner was interviewed and she was appointed Electrical Supervisor/Foreman by respondent No.3 on 10.03.1995. The appointment was for 89 days. After 89 days, the petitioner was given several appointment letters for 89 days each. The petitioner continued to work with a day or two fictional breaks.

(3.) In the appointment order dated 28.04.2005, the petitioner was shown trainer (Foreman Electrical) Part Time under pump operator scheme. The petitioner in response to Office Order No.167 dated 28.04.2005 had requested respondent No.3 to supply necessary proforma to be executed by petitioner, but that was never supplied. The petitioner submitted several representations to respondents 1 to 3 for granting her regular status of Electrical Supervisor or Foreman as she had rendered the required period of service similar to respondents 4 to 6, who were regularized as Workshop Supervisor Electrical and Steno Typist in accordance with the instructions dated 30.11.1996. The petitioner even moved Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, but in view of position explained in the affidavit of respondent No.2, the petitioner had been working as trainer, meaning thereby as Teacher on contract basis and, therefore, was not a worker, the petition was withdrawn. It has been stated that in the matter of regularization the petitioner has been discriminated. The petitioner instead of regularization has been reduced to Part Time Foreman wrongly, illegally and arbitrarily.